creationists and their double-standard

[Loudmouth]

One thing I notice is that evolutionists fail to mention things, I didn't even know that there were ERV sequences for the developement of placenta, or for sheep reproduction.

Then you haven't searched Pubmed very well.

No one is claiming that ERV's do not serve beneficial roles at times. However, it is very doubtful that all 200,000 serve an important role, especially given the fact that some human ERV's have not even reached fixation in the population. Some HERV's are only found in 10% of the population, for example.

Again, ERV's are evidence of evolution because of their placement in the genome. Whether or not ERV's are functional has nothing to do with the argument. God can do whatever God chooses from all accounts I have read. That's why God is called omnipotent. God could have given primates ERV's that do not fall into a nested hierarchy, right Richard?

Evolution can produce one and only one patter, a nested hiearchy. When that pattern is observed this is evidence for evolution.

 

[LittleNipper]

why is it that when you try to convince a creationist that evolution and common decent are true, they have an unrealistically high standard of proof, but they accept creationism based on the most infintesimally small insignificant piece of evidence?

Because it isn't as "infinitesimally small" as you want to believe. With GOD all things are possible. So a belief in GOD precludes that there are never any miracles. If miracles can be proven to occure, then the "infinitesimal" becomes highly probable.

 

[MoonLancer]

Because it isn't as "infinitesimally small" as you want to believe. With GOD all things are possible. So a belief in GOD precludes that there are never any miracles. If miracles can be proven to occure, then the "infinitesimal" becomes highly probable.

I would like to see human Limb regenerated with no scientific explanation. that would prove to me that god works outside the realm of probability.

 

[Patashu]

Sorta --- according to evolution --- do we come from apes, monkeys, orangutans, or chimpanzees?

Or none of the above?

There wasn't really a first human or first pair of humans. Categorizing exactly when a species ends and when it starts is impossible; no matter where we put it, the first human would be almost identical to the last pre-human. We have a rough date but for these reasons pinning down a generation is impossible.

 

[LittleNipper]

There wasn't really a first human or first pair of humans. Categorizing exactly when a species ends and when it starts is impossible; no matter where we put it, the first human would be almost identical to the last pre-human. We have a rough date but for these reasons pinning down a generation is impossible.

Yet you cannot show humanity changing towards some other species today, unless you see them as becoming fatter and unhealthier. That seems like degeneration.

 

[LittleNipper]

I would like to see human Limb regenerated with no scientific explanation. that would prove to me that god works outside the realm of probability.

No scientific explanation? I'm sure some scientists would have an explanation no matter how foolhardy. What I do see is that GOD has given to some men the joy of living without a limb that they thought that they must possess in order to live life fully contented.

 

[Loudmouth]

No scientific explanation? I'm sure some scientists would have an explanation no matter how foolhardy.

No, really. If I saw a limb that was regenerated in the span of a few microseconds I would agree that it was a supernatural healing. So is your god capable of this or not?

 

[Blayz]

No scientific explanation? I'm sure some scientists would have an explanation no matter how foolhardy. What I do see is that GOD has given to some men the joy of living without a limb that they thought that they must possess in order to live life fully contented.

I do hope your maniac deity visits you with this kind of joy someday.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

WC, please note that I put "Adam" in quotes.

Let me rephrase the question --- (*sigh*):

The very first human beings on earth --- who (or more appropriately - what) were their parents, according to evolution?

According to evolutionary theory, there was no 'first human'.
According to evolutionary theory, there was never such an extreme bottleneck in the human gene pool.
According to evolutionary theory, Adam's parents were as human as he was. The question, then, is: how must like a modern human was Adam (assuming such an individual existed at all)?

 

[Inan3]

WC, please note that I put "Adam" in quotes.

Let me rephrase the question --- (*sigh*):

The very first human beings on earth --- who (or more appropriately - what) were their parents, according to evolution?

Haven't you seen the pictures AV?



Adam's the one in the middle and his father and mother follow. Modern man is in front and I have to be careful what I say about the first guy (even if I am just being funny). I might get reported.

I think I've met these guys.

 

[Patashu]

Yet you cannot show humanity changing towards some other species today, unless you see them as becoming fatter and unhealthier. That seems like degeneration.

That's not evolution, really; it's a lack of evolution, in fact. Our environment and lifestyles are progressing so fast but our bodies are still optimized for a hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

You won't see human evolution on so short a scale, anyway.

 

[Inan3]

I do hope your maniac deity visits you with this kind of joy someday.

You and others might want to check out the new Temporary Rules.

http://foru.ms/t6349711&page=83

Post #1

Under "Temporary Rules"

Second item down.

 

[MoonLancer]

No scientific explanation? I'm sure some scientists would have an explanation no matter how foolhardy. What I do see is that GOD has given to some men the joy of living without a limb that they thought that they must possess in order to live life fully contented.

well i guess a limb regenerating even with a scientific explanation would be ok.(but not with a scientific cause such as medicines)

so god cant regenerate a limb? Why does god only perform miracles on cancer patients? Is it because cancer comes and goes and its easier to claim a miracles that are hard to verify?

Showing that people can remain happy after loosing a limb is a poor way to show the existence of god, considering people still feel joy even if they are not religious. What kind of person needs an invisible friend to be happy anyway?

 

[Blayz]

You and others might want to check out the new Temporary Rules.

http://foru.ms/t6349711&page=83

Post #1

Under "Temporary Rules"

Second item down.

I wasn't mocking. Over 2 million people killed by God in the OT, and that is not including Soddom or Egypt in Exodus, for ofenses ranging from "spilling one's seed" to having the misfortune of working for a higher up that displeased God in some way. And then LN suggests that losing a limb is some kind of Joy. All seems textbook maniacal to me.

 

[Inan3]

I wasn't mocking. Over 2 million people killed by God in the OT, and that is not including Soddom or Egypt in Exodus, for ofenses ranging from "spilling one's seed" to having the misfortune of working for a higher up that displeased God in some way. And then LN suggests that losing a limb is some kind of Joy. All seems textbook maniacal to me.

Just giving you a heads up.

 

[Phred]

Just giving you a heads up.

No, you're doing what wieners always do. When you can't push somebody you point to the rules.